01/04/2024 - Meeting Materials PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Formal Meeting
Thursday,January 4,2023
5:00 P.M.—9:00 P.M.
Join at the Memorial House at Memory Grove:375 N Canyon Rd,Salt Lake City,UT 84103
Agenda
1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM
A. Call to order
B. Chair Comments 5 mins
2. Public Comment 5:05 PM
— Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written 15 mins
comments are welcome.
3. Action Items 5:20 PM
- Approve December 7, 2023 meeting minutes 5 mins
- Chair and Vice-Chair Election 10 mins
4. Boards & Commissions Roles & Ordinance Review 5:35 PM
- Presentation from legal—Katherine Lewis 15 mins
5. Director's Report 5:50 PM
- Summary of current high-priority department items.—Kristin Riker 15 mins
6. Recess for Dinner and Ice Breaker Activity 6:05 PM
- Ice Breaker Activity& Dinner 30 mins
7. Staff Presentations, Updates & Discussions 6:35 PM
A. Emerald Ribbon—Makaylah Maponga 20 mins
B. Miller Park Presentation—Kat(Maus)Andra 20 mins
C. Staff Updates—Ashlyn Larsen 5 mins
8. Break W 7:20 PM
- 10-minute break 10 mins
9. Board Discussion 7:30 PM
A. Creating new subcommittees (Jordan River, 501c3, Rec Policies, Golf, Indigenous) 15 mins
B. Review current subcommittee membership (Trails,Communications, Bylaws) 5 mins
C. Discuss the process for stakeholder presentation requests 15 mins
D. Establish Board goals for 2024 20 mins
E. Subcommittee Reporting 15 mins
F. Board comments and question period 10 mins
G. Next meeting: February 1, 2024 5 mins
H. Request for future agenda items 5 mins
10. Adjourn 9:00 PM
Ak
ii.ago
sias
+��
WNW V
Oil
~
Miller Park Engagement
Trail Access Improvement & Historic Preservation
*Public
Lands June 2023
raw I Trek,a Natural lands I Urbw Forestry I con
Table of Contents
Background........................................................................................... 2
Engagement Approach......................................................................... 3
SurveyResults...................................................................................... 4
In-Person Engagement Results........................................................... 9
Common Themes in Open Comments................................................ 12
Assessment of Original CIP Request................................................... 14
NextSteps............................................................................................ 15
Appendix A: Information about the Proposed Projects..................... 21
Appendix B: Engagement Materials................................................... 25
1
Background
In FY 2o18-2o19, a constituent submitted a Capital Improvement Project application and
received funding for Miller Park to accomplish the following two goals: preserve the historic
structures and improve the accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park.
To achieve these goals,the application originally proposed the following three projects:
restoration of a trail alignment that was re-routed to a higher elevation in 2014,installation of a
walking bridge over Red Butte Creek, and stabilization of the historic WPA walls. Upon the
hiring of a consultant, Salt Lake City obtained geotechnical and structural engineering reports
that recommended projects to fulfill the stated goals of preserving historic structures and
improving trail accessibility.With the new information gathered,the three originally proposed
projects were deemed infeasible as they could not accomplish the stated goals.Therefore,based
on the new information and recommendations from the engineering reports, 12 new projects
were proposed to fulfill the two original goals to a greater extent.These projects include
improvements in the following areas:
• Trail Slope Improvement Projects: Projects add access amenities like handrails and
stairs.These projects also aim to level out the trail slope and protect the wall foundation.
• Accessibility Improvement Projects:Adds access amenities like handrails and ramps to
entrances and stairways along the trail.
• Wall Foundation Protection Projects: Projects to preserve historic walls by covering
exposed foundations and adding stabilization.
• Manage Structural Loads on Historic WPA walls: Projects will remove the weight being
placed on walls to extend their lifespan and remove stress.
• Trail Protection: Projects will improve the infrastructure of the trails and address erosion
and access issues,including retaining wall repairs.
2
Engagement Approach
The goals of this engagement effort were as follows:
➢ Identify which projects the public prioritize.
➢ Identify concerns and gather feedback.
➢ Inform the public about the proposed projects,how they were selected, and how to
access the survey,focusing a majority of engagement efforts on the Yalecrest
neighborhood,immediate neighbors, and park users.
An online survey and tabling events were held to accomplish the engagement goals. In
addition,the City mailed notices of the survey opening to approximately 339 residents
adjacent to the park and canvassed the adjacent residents to inform them of the survey.The
survey was available from February through March 2023.A total of 169 survey responses
were recorded through the online survey and approximately 30 individuals participated in
the in-person tabling sessions. Project information and the survey were distributed through
the following channels:
➢ A project page on the Public Lands website was developed with project information, in-
person engagement opportunities, a survey link, and project manager contact
information.
➢ A presentation was made at the March 9th Yalecrest Neighborhood Council meeting
informing attendees of the survey and providing information on the project process and
content of the survey.
➢ 339 mailers with a QR code and information about the survey were sent out to
households near Miller Park.
➢ Survey information was promoted on SLC Public Lands'social media accounts such as
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, as well as the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council
Webpage.
➢ Yard signs with survey QR codes were posted at the park and in the Yalecrest
neighborhood.
➢ Door-to-door canvassing was conducted in the Yalecrest neighborhood to inform nearby
residents how to complete the survey.
➢ Three in-person tabling sessions were held: one at Rowland Hall and two at the
Anderson-Foothill Library on separate days. Individuals had the opportunity to learn
about proposed projects and vote on their high-priority projects.
➢ Emailed survey information to Tracy Aviary, Preservation Utah, Seven Canyons Trust,
Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Utah Open Lands, and Mayor's Office of Equity
&Inclusion to distribute.
3
Survey Results
Question i
Survey respondents were first asked, "Based on the goals of the Miller Park CIP application,
which goal would you like prioritized?"The two goals, again, are to preserve the historic
structures and improve the accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. Results
showed there are about an equal number of respondents that either want to solely prioritize
historic structures or view the two CIP goals equally important. There were fewer responses
favoring only prioritizing improvements to make the trail system more accessible.The pie chart
(Figure 1) shows the results of how people responded.
Based on the goals of the Miller Park CIP application, which
goal would you like prioritized
Equally Preserve historic
important structures
37.28% 37.87%
Improve accessibility of
the trail system
19.53% r
Figure 1: Goal Prioritization (Note: the number of responses to this question was 16o).
4
Questions 2-4
Participants were then asked to select and rank three of the five proposed project themes.The
survey provided respondents with a drop-down option for the listed project themes.This section
of the survey revealed that most respondents preferred to prioritize projects that focused on trail
improvements,which is different from the results of the previous question(see Figure 1).The
responses to this question also revealed that participants prefer projects that protect and make
further trail improvements rather than making the trail more accessible.
In the ranking section,where respondents were asked to select the proposed project theme they
most highly prioritize,trail protection projects were voted the highest,with 38.46%in favor.The
second most popular project theme was trail slope improvements with 24.85%in favor. Lastly,
21.89%of participants selected wall foundation projects as the third most important project
theme.These results are featured in Figure 2 below which shows the project themes and how
they were prioritized. It is important to note that wall foundation projects and projects to
manage structural loads on historic walls were closely ranked in each category with wall
foundation projects receiving slightly more votes.
Question: Rank which projects you would like prioritized
70
60
50 ■Trail Slope Improvements
to
cAccessibility Improvements
> 40
4-
Wall Foundation Protection
a
30
Z Manage Structural Loads on
Historic Walls
20
■Trail Protection
10 ,
0
Priority One Priority Two Priority Three
Figure 2:Participants were asked to select three projects and rank them by priority. The chart
shows the results of how projects were ranked in each category.
5
Question 5
The comments responding to the survey question, "Do you have any recommendations for the
proposed projects?"reveal that people are concerned that if historic projects are not prioritized,
it will soon be too late to restore. However,many people also stated how parts of the trail are
dangerous to walk on, especially when it rains or snows.While people do want to see trail
improvements to ensure safety,there is concern that these improvements will take away from
the natural feel of the park and cause negative impacts on the environment. Throughout the
project selection,planning and design process,projects that maintain the natural feel of the park
will be prioritized. In addition,while minimizing negative impacts to the greatest extent
possible,the incorporating elements that enhance the natural environment,where possible,will
be a priority. Figure 3 shows other themes that were identified in the open comments for the
question,"Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects?".
Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects?
Keep Natural
Trail Projects
Restore/preserve wildlife&environmental features
No changes ■
Improve Accessibility ■
Historic Preservation
Concerns about off-leash dogs
Original CIP Project
Concerns related to Erosion
Improve Safety
Comments related to budget
Other
Improve maintenance
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of times themes were mentioned in comments
Figure 3: Recommendations for Proposed Project. Total number of comments submitted was
54•
6
Question 6
Figure 4 below shows the most common themes identified in the open comments for the
question,"Are there other projects you would like to see prioritized that were not identified?".
Like the results in Figure 3, many participants expressed how they would like to see projects that
improve the vegetation and habitat of the park. Participants also commented on how they would
like to restore Miller Park as a bird refuge and believe that improving the environmental
conditions can help attract birds to the park.Additionally, comments expressed wanting to see
greater enforcement for off-leash dogs at the park.
Are there other projects you would like to see prioritized that
were not identified?
Improve Revegetation/Habitat
Dog Issues
Birds
Irrigation
Mitigate Invasive Species
Creek Improvements
Amenities
Original CIP
Trail Projects
No changes
Focus on Maintenance
Other
Historic Preservation
Trail Safety
Signage
Keep Natural
Safety
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 16
Number of times themes were mentioned in comments
Figure 4: Other Projects Proposed. Total number of comments submitted was 55•
7
In-Person Engagement Results
The public was notified through the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council and Salt Lake City Public
Land's website about in-person tabling sessions. Each proposed project had a printout
(Appendix A)with information that included the estimated project cost,the purpose of the
proposed project, and an image of the project site. Participants were asked to select which
projects they would like to see prioritized by adding a marble to a cup with the corresponding
project letter(e.g., "Project A", "Project B") on the proposed project printout, simulating the
same questions being asked in the survey.A total of 30 individuals participated in the tabling
events, 10 of whom were individuals that participated at the Anderson-Foothill library and 20 of
whom were students from Rowland Hall.
Collectively,results from the in-person engagement showed individuals preferred prioritizing
projects B, D, and G. Project B falls under trail protection projects and Project D is under trail
slope improvement projects,while Project G focuses on making accessibility improvements.
Projects B and D are in line with the online survey results that individuals would like to see
prioritized. Below, Figure 5 shows the voting results from all the in-person engagement sessions.
Prioritized Projects at Tabling Events
20 —
18
16
14 —
w
> 12
4-
0 10
a
E 8
3
Z 6
4
2 1 .
0
Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project
B G D A E I K C L F H J
Proposed Projects
Figure 5: Prioritized Projects at Tabling Events(Note: total number of participants was 30)
However,participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library and participants from Rowland Hall
showed differences in the projects they would like prioritized. Potential reasons for this
difference could be due to age and familiarity with the park as participants from the library were
older and knew more about the history and progression of the park. Project H,which improves
accessibility of the park, received the highest number of votes for prioritization at the Anderson-
Foothill Library. Projects A, C, and E were the second priority, and all were ranked equally.
8
Project A focuses on trail protection while projects C and E aim to make trail slope
improvements.The bar chart, Figure 6 below, displays how the total number of participants at
the Anderson-Foothill Library voted to prioritize proposed projects.
Prioritized Projects at Anderson-Foothill Library
4 —
N
d
O 3 _
4-
0
N
2
3
Z
1
Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project
H A C E K L B D F G I J
Proposed Projects
Figure 6:Prioritized Projects at Anderson-Foothill Library. (Note: total number of
participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library on February 15 and 21,2023 was lo)
In comparison,students at Rowland Hall prioritized Project B highest which focuses on trail
protection. Project G was the second most prioritized project which improves trail accessibility.
Lastly, Project D,which makes trail slope improvements was the third prioritized project. Figure
7 below shows the voting results from the engagement at Rowland Hall.
Prioritized Projects at Rowland Hall
20
18
16
N
-(WU 14
O
> 12
4-
0 10
d
g
E
3 6
Z
4
2 1 1 , , ■ ■ ■
0
Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project
B G D E I A K F J L C H
Proposed projects
Figure 7.Prioritized Projects at Rowland Hall(note: total number of participants at Rowland
Hall was 20 participants)
9
Common Themes in Open Comments
The following are themes identified in the open comments from the online survey and in-person
engagements, and the City's response to each is in italics.
• Some comments communicated a community preference to see the lower trail by the
creek restored.
o Please seepage 12, `Assessment of Original CIP"section for more information
on the lower trail alignment.
• Participants expressed they would like to preserve the natural feel and look of the park
and are concerned that some of the proposed projects such as the stairs,will cause
negative impacts on the wildlife, and vegetation,and accelerate erosion.
o Public Lands has prioritized projects that minimize the addition of significant
infrastructure that will impact the natural feel of the park.
• Participants see a need for proper irrigation systems to be installed and for trees to be
planted once the irrigation system is in place.
o Public Lands acknowledges the need for improvement of irrigation throughout
the park. While irrigation replacement is not an eligible project(see original
goals)for this scope of work, the City also believes that, as trail improvements
are made, associated irrigation may be addressed, as well.
• Participants would like to see projects that help attract birds to Miller Park and restore
water levels in the river.
o Public Lands is very supportive of projects contributing to wildlife and stream
health. While those types of projects are not eligible projects within this scope of
work(see original goals),Public Lands will continue to work with the
community to identify other sources of funding to accomplish these goals.
• Some comments expressed how parts of the trail are dangerous to walk, especially
during the winter or rainy seasons, and would like it if the park was safe to walk on year-
round.
o Trail improvement projects that address hazards and safety have been
prioritized based on public engagement.
• While some participants may see the benefit of the trail slope improvement projects, they
and others have expressed that they would not like these improvements to be made with
cement or loose gravel and suggested using wood chips instead.
o Public Lands acknowledges these comments and will engage the community
further during the detailed design of the projects regarding trail materials.
• Survey respondents noted that there need to be more restrictions for off-leash dogs, or
that off-leash dogs be prohibited altogether.
o Public Lands acknowledges this concern in the park(and others like it)and will
continue to work with the community to address these needs.However,
addressing restrictions for dog regulations is not eligible within this scope of
work and funding (see original goals).
• Participants also expressed how they would not like to see the buttress in Project B
extend into the trail and believe the buttress will not be effective in supporting the weight
placed on the wall.
o If this project is pursued within this scope of work and funding source,Public
Lands will ensure that adequate trail clearance and access are provided along
10
with improvements to the buttress.Public Lands will consult structural
engineers and experts throughout the process to ensure effective and
structurally sound improvements.
• There are some concerns that some of the proposed projects will encroach on private
property.
o Public Lands will do all necessary due diligence prior to any physical
improvements on public property and will not pursue any projects that occur
outside of the park's boundaries.
Main Takeaways
Based on the results from the online survey and in-person engagement,trail slope improvement
projects and trail protection projects have been consistently prioritized. Project that have
minimize negative environmental impacts on the park and maintain the park's character and
purpose will be prioritized.Additionally,projects that both serve to improve trail safety and
preserve historic structures will be prioritized so long as they do not impede on private property
or extend into natural spaces.
11
Assessment of Original CIP Request
Throughout this project's engagement process (including the most recent engagement activities
in 2023 outlined in this report),interest in the original proposal to re-align the original,lower
trail that was along the creek prior to 2014,was of particular interest.While the geotechnical
and structural reports noted the infeasibility of the re-creation of this trail and that specific
project's inability to fulfill either of the goals of the original proposal,the City consulted with
various experts to confirm these findings and solidify Salt Lake City Public Lands'
recommendation to no longer pursue this particular project.The following are additional
considerations that make the relocation of the trail to the original,pre-2014 alignment
infeasible:
- Flood control measures:the proximity of the lower trail alignment to Red Butte Creek
poses potential for the trail to flood, and poses potential dangerous situations for trail
users (Salt Lake City Public Lands, Salt Lake City Public Utilities).
- Ecological health: erosion control and creek/creekbank health could be improved
through revegetating the bank(including the original alignment)with native vegetation
(Salt Lake City Public Lands,Trails and Natural Lands).
- Risk assessment: The high priority projects for the City Attorney's Office in relation to
risk are included within the twelve proposed projects below.The priority areas for Risk
related to the types of claims most filed include crib wall repairs, retaining wall repairs
and erosion mitigation along the creek, and reducing trip hazards on the trail by
ensuring irrigation and water meters are level with the ground(Salt Lake City Attorney's
Office, Risk Manager).
- Trail sustainability:A sustainable trail would not be possible given the original trail
alignment's proximity to the creek.The minimum regulatory width of an accessible trail
(36")would require the concrete bulwark downstream of the culvert to be extended
approximately 30"at the existing height for an appropriate gradient.This amount of fill
within the floodplain could constrain flood flows and induce stream bed and bank scour
and degrade trout habitat.Additionally, a retaining wall would have to be installed
downstream to create the level grade of minimum regulatory width required.This would
reduce flood storage outside of the main channel and could induce similar scour.This
would be very costly and impact the natural resources negatively(American Trails
Association).
- ADA Access: The lower, creek-side trail alignment has many areas that do not meet
technical width requirements,but the current,higher trail alignment does meet or
exceed the minimum width requirements. The entrance to the lower trail section has a
running slope of 15%,which is higher than the technical requirements for slope,whereas
the highest possible grade cannot exceed 12%. Most of the post-2014,upper trail already
meets slope requirements. Those segments that do not will be made compliant as part of
the other twelve project recommendations,including covering the exposed rock wall
foundation in project C.Most of the upper trail tread already consists of crusher
fines/decomposed granite that is preferable to bare dirt(for accessibility purposes and to
avoid deterioration and erosion).Additionally,the potential recommended project
improvements related to the upper trail will make a majority of the park accessible by a
trail that complies with trail accessibility guidelines.The remaining parts of the park
trails are either un-sanctioned trails or have stairs or access points with a slope outside
12
of the technical requirements that could be altered during this project anyway(Salt Lake
City Mayor's Office,ADA Coordinator).
- Historic Preservation: It is not believed that moving the trail away from the walls will
solve any preservation problems, and may have the potential to exacerbate issues with
the historic walls by moving routine maintenance and inspection away from them(State
Historic Preservation Office, State Historic Preservation Officer).
13
Next Steps
In the open comments section of the online survey, and during the in-person events,it is evident
that improving vegetation, and habitat and keeping Miller Park a natural area is a priority for
the community.This funding source is specifically allocated for access improvements and
historic preservation, so it is not able to be used for naturalization and restoration projects.
However,these comments will be considered as other funding becomes available or is able to be
completed in other capacities. (i.e.,through the Trails&Natural Lands team's regular
operations and maintenance in the park).
Additionally, many of the open comments expressed concerns about increasing the amount of
formalized infrastructure in the park and reducing the natural feel and intent of the space.
Because of this, Public Lands will consciously minimize additional infrastructure, such as
handrails and impervious surfaces,to the greatest extent possible as projects move forward
through the design and construction processes.
Finally, other comments received in the survey were not relevant to these projects specifically
but pertained to the overall management of the park.These comments will be considered by
Public Lands and will be passed along to the City Council.
Upon thorough analysis of the results of the public engagement,the projects have been
prioritized in the following order(beginning on page 14).
Please note that not all projects will be able to be completed with current funding. Projects will
be prioritized from top to bottom until the current project budget, $367,000,is depleted.All
projects will go through a detailed design process prior to construction which will include
property surveying,utility assessment,types of materials that will be used, other design
processes, and additional public engagement. If there are efficiencies gained by completing
multiple projects or project elements at once,those will be considered in the detailed design
process.
14
i. Project A: Repairs and replaces crib walls to provide stability.
Justification: This project is prioritized as ''...''
first for three reasons. First, "Preserve
historic structures"was the top goal ranked `
by the community engagement process, a
goal which this project would achieve.
Second,it also falls under a"Trail
Protection"project,which was ranked as , r
the highest priority through the online
survey. Finally,it ranked as one of the top 7
five project priorities through the in-person `' r. .,
engagement.Additionally, many of the
open comments emphasized the need for
trail projects that have minimal impact on
the natural feel of the space,which this
project accomplishes. Goals it fulfills:
Preserve Historic Structures
Likely to be funded with current Trail Protection
budget.
2. Project K: Stabilizes exposed wall foundation with soil nails and covers
foundation where feasible.
Justification: This project fulfills the
highest priority goal identified in the public
engagement, Preserve historic structures ,ram :• .00
and is considered a"Wall Foundation
Protection"project which was identified as SOIL NA LS OR
SHOT-CWTEW-TH } �••}
the second highest priority theme after A4CHORS TO STABILIZE U
projects A and B,falling within the"Trail U41DERCLITSTONE WALL �
Protection" category. Finally, open
comments in the online survey emphasized
the importance within the community of
preserving the historic walls and keeping �''�' '` ►.a
the parks natural feel.This project will '
protect the walls, and maintain the current
natural look and feel of the park. 1
Goals it fulfills:
Likely to be funded with current Preserve Historic Structures
budget. Wall Foundation Protection
15
3. Project L: Covers exposed wall foundation to prevent erosion with adjacent
properties.
Justification:This project fulfills the
highest priority goal identified in the public
engagement, "Preserve historic structures" �,,t�; ;�r
and is considered a Wall Foundation
Protection"project which was identified as
the second highest prioritized theme after r. ti'' . ;� "'• ��'�` '
projects A and B,falling within the"Trail
Protection" category. Open comments in � . ,, a � 7 ,. • _the online survey emphasized theMO
y
importance within the community of
preserving the historic walls.
Likely to be funded with current _
budget.
Goals it fulfills:
Preserve Historic Structures
Wall Foundation Protection
4. Project B: Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek.
Replaces crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated drainage.
Justification: This project falls under a
"Trail Protection"project,which was
fit
ranked as the highest priority through the "WAL_wMeur _s
online survey, and fulfills the goal to =
preserve historic structures. However,from = Y
an assessment by the State Historic
Preservation Office the timber walls are =Tl CRIB WALL
� _ CONCYTECRIB WALL
less historical) significant than the stone _ - THAT HAVE WASHED
3' g AWAY
walls,hence the lower priority than other
wall protection projects. Finally, it ranked
as the top improvement project coming out . T _
of the in-person tabling events. Finally,
projects prioritizing historic preservation
was a consistent theme in the open
comments which were considered during Goals it fulfills:
project prioritization,which would be Preserves Historic Structures
accomplished with the replacement of the Trail Protection
concrete crib wall.
Likely to be funded with current
budget
16
5. Project D: Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near
the entrance on goo South.
Justification: Project D is a"Trail Slope
Improvement Project"which ranked
highest as a second priority in the online ° _, --• T
survey, and was the highest rated trail ='
slope improvement project throughout the
tabling events. For the online survey,the
total count for"Wall Foundation
Protection"projects listed as a priority one
or two was higher than"Trail Slope s .
Improvement Improvements,"which
resulted in those projects being prioritized :S= ` 'r
over Project D. Project D is also a high � .
priority to minimize safety risks associated `. aDo RSERS TO Vo�LD F<L
with access, resulting in high prioritization
within the trail slope improvement project Goals it fulfills:
category. Based on the open comments,the Trail Slope Improvement
addition of the handrails may be
reconsidered during design to minimize
additional infrastructure within the park.
Project D is also expected to have a positive
impact towards protecting the wall
foundations.
Potentially funded with current
project budget.
6. Project C: Covers exposed rock wall foundation and corrects steep cross slope on
east side of creek.
Justification: Project C is a"Trail Slope '
Improvement Project"which ranked � COVOOU30SWVMLL=ouwaeMN
highest as a second priority in the online r•, r' A
survey. Project C will additionally protect
the wall foundations,which was a high
priority in both the online and in-person
surveys. Finally, Project C is also a high
priority to minimize safety risks associated _
with access by mitigating the steep cross
slopes. ¢.
Potentially funded with current ' r
project budget. rr
Goals it fulfills:
Trail Slope Improvement
17
7. Project E: Correct cross slope near Bonneview Drive entrance, and add stairs and
handrail.
Justification: Project E is a"Trail Slope
Improvement Project"which ranked _
highest as a second priority in the online
survey. Project E is also a high priority to
minimize safety risks associated with "ILo cu
access by mitigating the steep cross slopes.
Finally, Project E will set the groundwork r, ' R:
for improving wheelchair access from
Bonneview Drive and will lead in to
accomplishing Project H if funding allows. ,
Slope improvements within this project will ;,
prioritized over the construction of the z`` 'be -
P
stairs and rails.Additional feasibility " ~
assessment and engagement will be needed +
to install stairs and handrails. Goals it fulfills:
Trail Slope Improvement
Potentially funded with current
project budget.
8. Project G: Reconstruct stairs to make steps even and add handrail.
Justification: Project G is lower on the t
priority list because"Accessibility `i' '�
Improvement Projects were not prioritized
highly by the public in the online survey. LakDu+, _ys: ';E
However,it was the second highest
prioritized project at the in-person event, .
so it is prioritized higher than all other
access improvement projects proposed. +`
Additionally, Project G would mitigate
safety concerns with the current stairs, and <'
would improve year-round access which
was a repeated concern in the open
comments of the online survey.
Less likely to be funded with current Goals it fulfills:
budget. Accessibility Improvement
18
9. Project H:Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive
Justification: Project H is lower on the ;
priority list because"Accessibility
Improvement Projects"were not prioritized * _
highly by the public in the online survey. N�,,: A� �^
Additionally,in order to improve
wheelchair access to the park,making the
project impactful, other cross slope
projects, such as Project C, D and E,would
be required prior in order for people be
able to navigate the trail. However,if this
project may be incorporated with a higher- --
priority project,it may be considered
earlier in the process to increase access to
the park.
Goals it fulfills:
Less likely to be funded with current Accessibility Improvement
budget.
io. Project I,J and F: Remove concrete wall on goo South entrance,remove non-
native trees upon historic wall, and construct new stairs and handrails on east
side of creek.
Justification: It is very unlikely that
funding will allow the City to explore these
low-priority projects.Additionally, due to
concerns relayed through the public R{
engagement process by the community,
�f +,
additional feasibility studies and
community engagement would be required
to move forward with these projects.
Therefore,the City at this time will not be
moving forward with exploration of these
three potential projects.
-ram
The current budget is likely Goals it fulfills:
insufficient to construct these Preserve Historic Structures
projects. Accessibility Improvements
19
Appendix A: Information about Proposed Projects
Figure Al to Figure A6 are the documents used to display at tabling events to inform
participants about the proposed projects.
Figure Ai: Instructions and project description.
RP V
Miller Park Capital Improvement Project
Project Description
In 2017, Miller Park (located at 900 South and Diestel Road/1735 East) was identified as the
site of a constituent capital improvement program (CIP) project. The CIP application focuses
on two primary goals:
1. Preserve historic structures
2. Improve accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park
Based on the goals of the CIP application and the findings in the existing conditions analysis,
several projects were identified within the park to improve trail accessibility and preserve
historic structures. Each proposed project shown below varies in scale and cost, however,
not all projects may be implemented due to the project's current budget.
We would like to learn, which projects the public would like prioritized. Please vote
which projects you would like to see prioritized by placing an object in the cup.
The pictures below demonstrate the proposed projects for Miller Park. The dollar
signs provide a cost range for each proposed project.
Low=$:5-15k
Med=$$:15-2Ok
High=$$$:20-3Ok
20
Figure A2: Description of proposed trail protection projects.
rail Protection Projects
9 -�yj REINFORCE BULGING TIMBER
WALL WITH BUTTRESSES
-
` _ REPLACE SECTIONS OF
CONCRETE CRIB WALL
THAT HAVE WASHED
R AWAY
Proposed Project A . Proposed Project B
• $$
Description.Repairs and replaces crib walls to provide Description:Reinforces walls with buttresses on the east
stability. side of the creek.Replaces crib wall on creek side to
reduce concentrated drainage.
Figure Ag: Description of proposed trail slope improvement projects.
Trail Slope Improvement Pr '
-AEU WALL FOUNDATIr_,r:
• OP
Proposed Project C:Covers exposed rock wall �`NEED N
P 1 P � 1.1 P.%R RETENTION
foundation&corrects a steep cross slope on the east
side of the creek.
I
•Proposed Project D:Located near the entrance on 900 S,
would improve running and cross slopes for accessibilty
•Proposed Project E:Adds stairs and handrails.Cross .
slope would be corrected near Bonneview DriveJOB-
y 1•
Entrance.
r.. Proposed Project C
EXTEND TIMBER WALL TO ACCOMMODATE FILL $
COVER Ex ;)WALL FOUNDATION �A!Y
t
HOLD FILL F _
S, ` 14,
• J +t_ � ;^ js � Y
Proposed Project D � Proposed Project E
ADD RISERSTO HOLD FILL• $$
21
Figure A4: Description of proposed accessibility improvement projects.
Accessibility Improvement Projects 1
SAIL .1. .-
1.
Purpose:
• Proposed Project F:constructs new stairs and L
handrails on the East Side of the Creek
• Proposed Project G:reconstructs stairs to make =+�
steps even and adds handrails ---
• Proposed Project H:adds a curb cut and ramp . f
from Bonneview Drive
5 Proposed Project F �a
$$$ Al�
wY.. �.
' .1NDIh•
Proposed Project G Proposed Project H
Figure A5: Description of proposed projects to remove weight on historic walls.
Projects to Remove Weight on Historic Walls
U `
DEMOLISH CONCRETE
WALLS THAT PUT I�. '��-•'✓l v� 1• '� Y
ADDITIONAL LOADS ON
STONE WALLS
�W
,CJ
Proposed Project I ` Proposed Project J
Description:Removes the stacked concrete retaining Description:Removes non-native trees growing within
wall on 900 S entrance.This wall is not historical and 5ft.of the back of a historical wall
places pressure on the existing historical structure.
22
Figure A6: Description of proposed projects to protect wall foundation
Projects to rotect Wall Foundation
F.
SOIL NAILS OR
SHOT-CRETE WITH
ANCHORS TO STABILIZE
UNDERCUT STONE WALL ' t �:,••t[�
ion j
Proposed Project K ,p• i r!K Proposed Project L
Description:Stabilizes exposed wall foundation with Description:Covers exposed wall foundation to
soil nails and covers foundation where It is feasible prevent erosion with adjacent properties
23
Appendix B: Engagement Materials
Image is The image below was used to create the yard signs, mailers, and flyers for
canvassing.
R ""• w
F` - _ -
Public • looking •
* in
• • • • • • historic
Filit• • • •
y�
should prioritize at Miller Park. The survey
�. • closewill 9, 2023.
a
R VISIT
SLC.'• Pubi icLands
24
Image 2: Project Website
h'
- t
Background Project Location:900 South and Diestel
In 2017,a constituent submitted an application for funding that addressed the following goals at Miller Park: Road/1735 East
1.Preserve historic structures,such as the WPA(Works Progress Administration)masonry walls,foot bridge, project Manager:Kat Maus
and stairways constructed during the Great Depression
2.Improve accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park.
To achieve these goals,the constituent originally proposed the following three projects: Email:Katherine.Maus@slcgov.com
• Restore a trail alignment that was re-routed in 2014 Phone:(801)657-2223
• Install a walking bridge over Red Butte Creek
• WPA Wall stabilization
Upon the hiring of a consultant,the City obtained geotechnical and structural engineering reports that
recommended projects to fulfill the stated goals(Preserve historic structures and Improve accessibility).With the
new information gathered,Public lands is proposing 12 new projects that will fulfill the original goals to a greater
extent.These projects include improvements in the following areas:
. Trail Slope Improvement Projects:Projects add access amenities like handrails and stairs.These projects
also aim to level out trail slope and protect the wall foundation.
• Accessibility Improvement Projects:Adds access amenities like handrails and ramps to entrances and
stairways along the trail.
• Wall Foundation Protection Projects:Projects to preserve historic walls by covering exposed foundations
and adding stabilization.
• Manage Structural Loads on Historic Walls:Projects will remove weight being placed on walls to extend
their lifespan and remove stress.
• Trail Protection:Projects will improve infrastructure of the trails address erosion and access issues,
including retaining wall repairs
The 12 specific projects to address these improvements can be found by clicking the button below.
Engagement Opportunities
vJP nt to hc�r frnm vniil
25
Image 3: Post used for social media.
WE NEED
YOUR
it
tr JM Y� •tV
Take the Miller Park CIP i
Project prioritization
survey. "`
Survey open now thru
March 9th.
FclLln_L7__J.ml(J.l"
26
27
� l L nd ic a s
0 u b P
O,L y •
�j Parks I Trails & Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf
Staff Responses to Public Comments from the December 7, 2023, PNUT Board Meeting
Elliot Mott
Mr. Mott explained some issues with people accessing the Jordan River, and West Valley has removed
their takeout. People need to access the river of around 2100 S along the right-hand side.The City needs
to do something about this gap to make it easier for the public to access the Jordan. River. Mr. Mott's
other comment on the Jordan River is that it is near Fisher Mansion.There are issues with the road
people use as a river trail and limited parking access.
Staff Response:
SLC Public Lands is working with Salt Lake County on design concepts for a boat ramp at 2100 South. Salt
Lake County Parks and Recreation are leading this effort. No timeline for construction is available
currently.
SLC Public Lands is working with SLC Transportation and Streets Division on the possibility of increasing
parking along 200 South. There is currently parking along the Northside of 200 South, but parking is still
restricted along the Southside of 200 South.
Jim Webster
Mr. Webster said he was the anonymous constituent applicant for Miller Park's CIP grant. He shared with
the Board that he and Lewis Kogan submitted the three things proposed for the project. He had a
document in his hands he referenced.The items proposed in the document were deemed infeasible, but
it doesn't explain the reasons. He referenced a photo of Miller Park with a bridge. Part of the bridge was
a retaining wall built by Salt Lake County in 1978. It was demolished by Public Lands in 2014. Mr.
Webster submitted the CIP application to reinstate that wall and the pathway below. He shared, within
the document he was referencing,that the construction drawings for the 2014 work do not include the
upper trail mentioned in the document. He went on to share that the upper trail happened because the
lower trail was demolished.The wall within the upper trail is built along and is coming apart. He said that
many of Public Land's opinions within the document are based on a Geo.Technical report Jim Nordquist
said he wasn't aware of the wall being demolished. He lives near Miller Park and has to watch people
use the insufficient lower path. Before the path was demolished, a petition was going around, which was
ignored, and now CIP is being ignored. He invites the Board to listen to your constituents.
Staff Response:
Public Lands staff have already responded to Mr. Webster's comments either through staff responses to
Public Comments at PNUT meetings or through our communication with him and the Yalecrest
Neighborhood Council over the past six years. Following the City Council action on October 17, 2023, the
approved scope of work and expenditure of CIP funds have been modified to specifically focus on the
tasks upon which Public Lands and the neighborhood agree. We look forward to continuing to work with
the neighborhood in designing and implementing this project in the future.
Travis Winn
Mr. Winn said he runs a non-profit called Free The Game.They've partnered with Public Lands to do a
street soccer court at Sherwood Park and Salt Lake County at Sugarhouse Park.They have a CIP
application to convert unused concrete pads into street soccer courts. He said a lot of soccer is pay-to-
play, and not everyone can afford that.These courts aren't costly to build. He shared that they've had
local artists come and do some artwork on the courts.
Staff Response:
Public Lands has partnered with Calle and Free the Game to complete the first Futsal Court in SLC at
Sherwood Park. SLC Public Lands is very supportive of this program and is excited about the possibility of
additional funding to transform other underutilized concrete courts within the City.
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Formal Meeting
Thursday,December 7,2023
5:00 p.m.—7:30 p.m.
Join Via Zoom:https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85882467329?pwd=OUdObld5eHRnL21EVOlzMlkvZ3hHZzO9
Or Join at the Public Lands Administrative Building: 1965 W.500 S.Salt Lake City,UT 84104
Upstairs Parks Training Room
Join by phone
Phone:+1-253-215-8782
Webinar ID:858 8246 7329
Access code:127214
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
1. Convening the Meeting 5:00 PM
A. Call to order
- Kerri Nakamura
- Dave John
- Meredith Benally
- Phil Carroll
- Aaron Wiley
- Melanie Pehrson
- Jenny Hewson
- Samantha Finch
- Ginger Cannon
- Clayton Scrivner
- Brianne Binnebose
- CJ Whittaker
- Talula Pontuti
B. Chair Comments 5 mins
Ms. Binnebose reminded everyone this is the last board meeting of 2023 and highlighted some of
the Board's accomplishments this year. She also reminded everyone that they will be discussing
potential new subcommittees at the retreat and encouraged members to come prepared to discuss
these at the retreat. Ms. Binnebose said all Board members need to be in at least one subcommittee
per their bylaws so they can all share the workload.
2. Approval of Minutes 5:05 PM
Approve November 5, 2023 meeting minutes 5 mins
Ms. Cannon motioned to approve the minutes. Mr.John seconded the motion. The Board
unanimously voted to approve the November minutes.
3. Public Comment 5:10 PM
— Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written
comments are welcome.
Elliot Mott
Mr. Mott explained some issues with people accessing the Jordan River, and West Valley has
removed their takeout. People need to access the river of around 2100 S along the right-hand side.
The City needs to do something about this gap to make it easier for the public to access the Jordan
River. Mr. Mott's other comment on the Jordan River is that it is near Fisher Mansion.There are
issues with the road people use as a river trail and limited parking access.
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Jim Webster
Mr. Webster said he was the anonymous constituent applicant for Miller Park's CIP grant. He shared
with the Board that he and Lewis Kogan submitted the three things proposed for the project. He had
a document in his hands he referenced. The items proposed in the document were deemed
infeasible, but it doesn't explain the reasons. He referenced a photo of Miller Park with a bridge. Part
of the bridge was a retaining wall built by Salt Lake County in 1978. It was demolished by Public
Lands in 2014. Mr. Webster submitted the CIP application to reinstate that wall and the pathway
below. He shared, within the document he was referencing,that the construction drawings for the
2014 work do not include the upper trail mentioned in the document. He went on to share that the
upper trail happened because the lower trail was demolished.The wall within the upper trail is built
along and is coming apart. He said that many of Public Land's opinions within the document are
based on a Geo.Technical report Jim Nordquist said he wasn't aware of the wall being demolished.
He lives near Miller Park and has to watch people use the insufficient lower path. Before the path
was demolished, a petition was going around,which was ignored, and now CIP is being ignored. He
invites the Board to listen to your constituents.
Travis Winn
Mr. Winn said he runs a non-profit called Free The Game.They've partnered with Public Lands to do
a street soccer court at Sherwood Park and Salt Lake County at Sugarhouse Park.They have a CIP
application to convert unused concrete pads into street soccer courts. He said a lot of soccer is pay-
to-play, and not everyone can afford that.These courts aren't costly to build. He shared that they've
had local artists come and do some artwork on the courts.
4. Director's Report &Staff Items 5:25 PM
- Introduce Landscape Architects—Tom Millar 5 mins
Mr. Millar shared he wanted to take the time to introduce his staff, as they will each present to the
Board in the future. He introduced three of the four new landscape architects or associate landscape
architects now in the Public Lands Department.They will be managing and designing projects and
helping Public Lands fulfill the design and partially some of the project construction.
Mr.Troy Anderson shared he's been with the City for about 1%years. He used to work in a private
practice for 20+years. Some of the projects he is working on are Allen Park, Foothills Trails, and
Liberty Park projects.
Mr. Bruce Brown shared he's been with the City for over 30 years. He's worked on most of the trails
and parks around. He has several projects he's working on, and right now, his biggest is Marmalade
Plaza, along with 6-7 other projects.
Ms. Kathryn Sonntag shared that she is an associate landscape architect. She started with the City in
January. Before working for the City, she spent eight years at MGBA, a private landscape architecture
firm doing both planning and landscape architect work. Before that, she was with Envision Utah. She
has a master's degree in landscape, architecture, and environmental planning from USU. She works
on Allen Park, Marmalade Plaza, Liberty Park, Memory Tree Grove Project, and Bonneville Shoreline
trailhead.
- Summary of current high-priority department items. — Kristin Riker 5 mins
Ms. Riker said that staff have been working on their budgets for FY2025 and are hoping to be on the
Board's February agenda.They're a little late presenting to the Board, but she thinks staff can still
share their budgets with the Board and get their advice and recommendations to the Mayor on time.
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
She also shared one of the tasks they are working on is an emergency budget request for funding for
urgent needs at Liberty Park.The greenhouse had a condition assessment done, and it's been
determined that it's unsafe for staff to be there due to structural stability, asbestos, and lead. The
staff has been moved, and they have a structural engineering assessment to see if the newest
greenhouse area could still be used if they complete the lead, mold, and asbestos mitigation.They
are asking for funding, and if that can't be done,they are asking for funding for new hoop houses to
put at Liberty Park so staff can continue growing the plants. She continued to discuss the greenhouse
storing and growing process and funding. The funding request is also to put in new gates at Liberty
Park. She continued to discuss the efforts staff are making at Liberty Park.
Ms. Pehrson asked if the CIP application for Liberty Park is going in this year's CIP application
submission. Ms. Riker said yes and apologized that the Board didn't get to review, but sometimes
that happens, and staff have needs they need to push through.There are two applications for Liberty
Park, both for the greenhouse. Ms. Riker continued to discuss the Liberty Park CIP applications.
Mr. Carroll asked if the staff has looked into using the LDS hospital to store their plants. Ms. Riker
said she didn't know they had greenhouses. She said they will use the University of Utah
greenhouses for their native plant propagation program. It works for that program because they
distribute plants all over the City. It's a nice partnership with the university; it gets students to come
in and help and learn about native plant propagation. Staff will use those for trails and natural lands.
For the parks, it's hard to have something so far off-site. Ms. Riker said it was a good idea and asked
Mr. Carroll if he had a contact.The Board and staff continued to discuss storage for plants in the
greenhouse.
- Allen Park Update— Kat (Maus) Andra 15 mins
Ms. Andra shared her screen to display an Allen Park update presentation for adaptive reuse and
management plans. Public Lands and their consultant team have been working with the community
for the past year to gather feedback and determine the future uses and programming for Allen Park.
They are almost ready to share their final concept and design. They've done multiple rounds of
broad public engagement and have met frequently with a technical and community advisory
committee; she thanked Ms. Finch for being a big part of that. Ms. Andra explained the first round of
engagement was to gather big ideas of what folks wanted to see in the park. From these ideas, staff
created three concept designs, which they evaluated in their second round of public engagement.
1. Concept#1: Art in the Wild—This focuses on the natural environment, bolstering some
wildlife habitats, education, and the ecology site while integrating a few artists in residence
studios onsite—this option removes most structures.
2. Concept#2: Art &Sciences Collective—This concept had few opportunities for
environmental improvements but saved most of the structures for community and artists'
studios.This concept preserves the existing tree canopy.
3. Concept#3: Cultural Village—this concept added new structures to the park to add to the
capacity to house community organizations, artists, and scientists.
Ms. Andra shared that all this information is also available on their website. As folks weighed in on
those options, it was clear that concept A, which was the concept that removed the most structures,
was the highest valued. People valued the natural spaces,the restoration elements, the community
gathering spaces,the outdoors, and the habitats. Ms.Andra continued to share the findings for Allen
Park.
Ms. Andra shared a visual of a rough draft concept for the park.This began with removing most
structures celebrating the environment but retaining a few additional structures that the concept
proposed. It includes a plan for parking, a trail connection to the east to connect to the rest of the
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
City, some stream access points to Immigration Creeks, improvements to the creek, lots of native
and ornamental planting, and some pedestrian lighting. She continued to discuss the rough draft
concepts for Allen Park. She shared that they are collecting comments until January 15th, and a
virtual open house will be on December 111h.The goal is to make the final concepts available at the
end of January. Ms. Andra continued to discuss the final concept plan.
Mr. Carroll asked if there was any evidence that indigenous people used this area. Ms. Andra said in
their cultural landscape report that they explored what was not a significant area for that period of
time.The period of significance came a little bit later. Mr. Carroll said it would be to acknowledge
that somewhere with a sign. Ms. Andra said they will have a signage plan.
Ms. Cannon asked where the trail connection would be. Ms. Andra said there are a lot of challenges.
The easement goes through the Garfield school and connects to 1500 East,just south of the Blaine
Nature Preserve. It would be logistically challenging as the slopes here are steep.They will pursue
the feasibility of that pretty heavily. Ms. Cannon asked if there was any possibility that
transportation or Public Utilities could provide funding out of the bond since it's a trail. Ms. Andra
said that Public Utilities would be working with the ecological sub-consultant Public Lands is working
with to pursue additional funding, specifically for the creek, and transportation is looking at Federal
funding that could be utilized for the trail connect.The Board and staff continued to discuss funding
mechanisms.
Ms. Cannon asked if there was a rough estimate of how many parking spaces will be available. Ms.
Andra said there's a space in the north of the park that they want to eliminate and concentrate all
the ADA parking on the southern drive.The northern gateway to the park is visually significant
historically,which they want to maintain.The goal is to have all the ADA stalls that can fit 2-3 in the
southern drive, and then a parking area near 1400 East can accommodate 12 stalls, with one being
ADA accessible.The Board and staff continued to discuss parking at Allen Park.
Ms. Hewson asked if the staff was concerned with the public comment period during the holidays.
Ms. Andra said they considered it, and as a team,they feel like the engagement up to this point has
been robust.They are confident that most of the comments they've received up until now will
formulate the plan right now and just wanted to allow folks to share some final thoughts. Ms. Riker
asked Ms. Andra to clarify that this is the entire plan for the park and that the $4.5 million from the
GO Bond will not cover the construction or implementation of the entire plan. Ms. Andra said yes.
The GO Bond will focus on landscaping improvements to open more park areas to public access.The
Board and staff continued to discuss Allen Park.
- Staff Updates. —Ashlyn Larsen 5 mins
Ms. Larsen shared that they are making progress on creating a calendar to inform Board members of
upcoming events to ensure they follow OPMA.
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
5. Action Items 5:55 PM
Review and approve letters of support for Internal and Constituent CIP Applications 10 mins
Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Board's draft letter. Ms. Pontuti updated the letter using
last year's as a starting point. Ms. Pontuti explained how she began creating the letter. She made
two versions of the letter. One shows the top five rankings for internal and the top 10 for constituent
applications.The other version displays the rankings for all of them. She thinks the shorter one is
better visually. Ms. Binnebose asked Board members to indicate which version they wanted, longer
versus shorter. Ms. Cannon said she liked the shorter version because it had more impact. Ms.
Nakamura agrees with the shorter version, as all the applications go forward anyway. Ms. Pontuti
said she would like feedback on the written paragraphs and why projects were not chosen based on
all the provided comments. She continued to explain how she formulated the content of the letter.
Ms. Cannon referenced a section Ms. Pontuti had highlighted regarding changes they had suggested
last year for the CIP application in the future. Ms. Pontuti read the paragraph to the Board and staff.
Mr. Millar said he does not recall them discussing it, but he's not invited to any of those meetings
that don't include discussion applications that apply to them. He encouraged the Board to include
whatever they wanted in the letter.The Finance Department creates the application, establishes the
timeline, and oversees the process. Mr. Millar said he would send out a blank application to the
Board.The Board and staff continued to discuss the CIP application.The Board and staff continued to
discuss the CIP application and CDCIP ranking. Ms. Pontuti asked the board if they wanted to make
any edits and asked them to please mark them in the first version of the letter. She aims to have all
the finalized decisions Monday night after the 5:30 PM deadline. The Board and staff continued to
discuss their deadlines for the letter and CIP rankings.
6. Board Discussion 6:05 PM
A. Review rankings and prioritizations for Constituent CIP Applications 45 mins
Ms. Binnebose reminded the Board that after today's discussion and question and answer with staff,
Board members have until Monday, December 111" at 5:30 PM to make any adjustments to their
first-round rankings.This will ensure Board members have enough time to finalize and deliver the
letter by December 141". Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the Board's Constituent CIP
rankings.The Board's current top 10 rank is as follows:
1. Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study and Fairmont Restroom Conceptual Design
2. Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration
3. Riverside Park Pathway Loop
4. Jordan River Trail Food Forest+ Partner Garden
5. Street Soccer and Futsal Courts
6. Poplar Grove Park Lighting
7. Pocket Park Community Space
8. International Peace Gardens
9. Jordan River Trail Safter Crossing Improvements
10. Playground Shade
Ms. Cannon shared that part of her ranking process was related to funding. If the CIP application had
no estimated funds, it went down in her rankings. She also preferred projects with an internal or
private match or something going on that the GO Bond could supplement or impact fees. She also
looked at how it would activate the space and meet the critical needs of staff and the community.
Ms. Binnebose said her repeat applications go to the top of her list for prioritization. Ms. Finch
shared that she visited some smaller parks, like Fault Line, and talked to people using the space. She
brought up that staff has its own CIP and plans to do something with restoring playgrounds based on
needs. It's her way of rejecting the idea that we should just pick parks themselves and that staff
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
should have more control over which playgrounds need updating.The Board liked this point. Ms.
Binnebose thinks the International Peace Gardens is a nice cultural and historical space for many
people, so preventing vandalism would be great.The Board continued to discuss their criteria for
constituent CIP ranking.
Mr. Wiley said his big focus was diversity, equity, and inclusion. One of the projects that stuck out to
him that wasn't on the top of the list was the calisthenics project. As neighborhoods change, it's
important to consider people who could benefit from those parks in their community. He also liked
the basketball court and thinks it represents a lot of equity and inclusion of spaces that need to be
activated. Mr. Wiley continued to discuss including amenities that activate parks. Ms. Pehrson
brought up that something similar was presented a while back. Ms. Riker said this sort of project at
Liberty Park has its hurdles because of the Historic Landmark Committee. She said it would be nice if
this request were at a different park.The Board and staff continued to discuss the calisthenics
project.
Ms. Hewson likes the Peace Gardens project and wondered if potential external funding sources like
grants exist. She asked if the Food Forest project was the unsanctioned community garden. She said
she ranked this high because anything provisioning food in that environment is appealing and
community-driven. Mr.John agreed with Ms. Hewson's comments. Mr.John added the garden also
provides medicinal plants. Ms. Pontuti shared that the garden was also one of her top choices. She
shares that she teaches a high school class to seniors to teach them about cultural connections and
how they connect to food in general. The Board and staff continued to discuss the garden project.
Ms. Finch thanked the Board for their prioritization of the Fairmont Restrooms. She is happy to see
any sort of pilot that goes off in Fairmont and will benefit the entire City. She shared she ranked the
Fairmont Park East Enhancement and Fairmont Park Basketball Court low. She does think the East
Enhancement is required. She encouraged board members to visit Fairmont to see the growth
happening in that area, as enhancements need to happen at some point. Still, due to the GO Bond
and the benefits Fairmont will receive from the tennis courts and regional money enhancing it, it's
getting love now.The field surrounding the current half-court is heavily utilized for the basketball
court project. She wonders if there needs to be larger engagement needs to be done. Ms. Finch also
shared she ranked the Jordan River Trail Safer Crossing lower as transportation could probably help
with this project. She was under the impression from Mr. Millar's comments that this project may be
evolving and transportation taking the lead. Board members had their top 10, and all the projects
were ranked as Board members ranked them. The Board and staff continued to discuss this project
and the rankings.
Ms. Hewson asked the Board how they ranked the East Bench Preserve the way they did. Ms.
Cannon said she's there a lot, and it has a lot of issues and is highly utilized. She added she felt like it
would be included with the Foothills, so why would it be ranked.While it has issues, it's a highly
active area, lacking many other projects. Ms. Pehrson asked if this project would be included with
the Foothills. Mr. Millar said the Foothills plan focuses on Immigration Canyon and North Salt Lake.
This project is just south of the Foothills, but the acquisition of property in that area and the
improvements in that area would be dependent on receiving funding, probably through CIP.
Mr. Scrivner asked the Board why they ranked the 5th West Commons Conversation Centers the way
they did and what was missing from that application. Ms. Cannon said it ranked high because she
saw it as activating the space. Ms. Nakamura noted that it was well-used when visiting the space.
Ms. Cannon asked Ms. Nakamura if she felt like it needed seating areas. Ms. Nakamura said she saw
many people walking their dogs, sitting on the bench,and reading.The Board continued to discuss
the 5th West Commons project. Mr. Scrivner also asked the Board why they ranked the 81h East Parks
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
and Pathway they did. Ms. Cannon said she didn't think it was a strong application. Ms. Cannon said
she had lived on 8th East for many years and wondered how it would work. Ms. Nakamura said it's a
beautiful street with beautiful sidewalks, so while it's a super cool idea to put a trail through, there
are so many other streets that don't even have any paths to walk right now. Ms. Pehrson shared that
the Pocket Park Community Space was an application she put in based on feedback from people
she's spoken to within that area. Right now, it's just a grassy space that no one uses. She said that
many people have requested that something be put there. The Board and staff continued to discuss
the 8`" East project.
Mr. Millar said he wants to hear as many comments on these projects as the Board has. He's writing
down all the ideas that are coming up and ways they can encourage the applicant to improve their
application. Ms. Nakamura said it was hard to find the Victory Tennis courts. She is asked if the
county will not let people park for tennis in the county parking lot. Mr. Millar said there is parking,
but you must walk all the way around. She's supportive of public tennis courts to keep them
accessible to those who can't afford to pay to play. Ms. Riker said this tennis court is very active.
Ms. Finch said she ranked the Liberty Wells Community Garden higher as she always passes it, and it
seems like a perfect spot for the community garden. She said the Mayor, at one point, one of her
priorities was community gardens.There's a big space right next to it currently. She also said she
loves the playground shade and is pleased with the rankings overall. Ms. Riker said she's excited to
see how the Board's rankings will compare to the CDCIP because she feels this group is the most
representative staff has had.The Board and staff continued to discuss CIP rankings.
Ms. Pehrson asked if staff works with transportation on trails and how they decide on the
management and operation of trails. Mr. Millar said they do work with transportation. Once the trail
is built, it's a Public Lands trail. Implementing a new trail or significant improvement to a trail
depends on where it is,whether it's on its property or along the street right away. Mr. Millar used
the 9-line trail as an example. It was a transportation project and will be maintained by Public Lands.
Mr. Millar said that some work being done to the Jordan River Trail around 200 South is being
worked on by Public Lands, Engineering, and U-DOT.The Board and staff continued to discuss trails.
Ms. Binnebose reminded the Board that after tonight's discussion,they have until 5:30 PM Monday
to make any final comments or adjustments to their rankings.
B. Chair and Vice-Chair Nominations 5 mins
Ms. Binnebose invited the Board to nominate a Chair and Vice-Chair. She reminded everyone they
have until the January meeting to accept or decline your nomination. Ms. Finch nominated Mr.
Scrivner for Chair. Ms. Finch nominated Ms. Pehrson for Vice-Chair. Ms. Pehrson accepted the
nomination. Ms. Pehrson said she nominated Ms. Nakamura, but she said maybe next year so she
can learn more. Ms. Finch nominated Ms. Cannon, but she declined over email. Ms. Pehrson
nominated Ms. Hewson for Chair. Ms. Nakamura thanked Ms. Binnebose for the work she's done.
C. Subcommittee Reporting 5 mins
Communications Subcommittee
Ms. Binnebose said this month's Communications Subcommittee meeting focused on the agenda,
CIP, and the letter.That's what they've been working on.Their minutes are in the folder. She said
one of the action items is the January agenda item and thinking about a process for when
community members want to give presentations to the Board, so they wanted to have some ideas
and conversation starters to help facilitate that discussion in January.
Trails Subcommittee
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Mr. Whittaker said they met, but there's nothing to discuss until the City reports on the findings
from the consultants'work. He noted that Mr. Fonarow sent them an email saying that the staff
expects all that work to be finished before the end of the year. He said there was a delay due to a
management change in the SE Group consultant team.
D. Board comments and question period 10 mins
Ms. Finch asked if any subcommittee wants to do a more formal presentation/update on their work
over the year. If so, she'd like to have more time dedicated to subcommittees. As a new Board
member, Ms. Nakamura liked this idea; it would be helpful to understand what the subcommittees
are,their goals, and where they are headed so she can figure out which subcommittee to join. Ms.
Cannon said this is something suggested in the Bylaws to have this sort of reporting, and Ms. Larsen
put together a list of the current subcommittees, who's a member of each, and that's in the shared
files. Ms. Larsen said it's in the onboarding presentation. Ms. Nakamura asked what the staff's
inventory of urban trails that aren't related to the Foothills is, as she is wondering if there needs to
be a focus on that. Mr. Whittaker said the Foothills Subcommittee is not just the Foothills Trails; it's
the Foothills in general. Ms. Riker listed off the 9-Line Trail, Folsom Trail, McClellan Trail, Parley's
Historic Nature Park Trail, and Jordan River Trail. Ms. Nakamura asked Ms. Pehrson if she had ever
considered opening up her idea for the Jordan River Trail Subcommittee to encompass all urban
trails. Ms. Pehrson said she hadn't thought of expanding it, but she doesn't want the scope of it to
become too broad. However, it's worth considering if they can narrow the purpose.The Board and
staff continued to discuss subcommittees.
E. Next meeting: January 4, 2023 5 mins
F. Request for future agenda items 5 mins
Ms. Larsen shared her screen to display the draft agenda for January. Ms. Binnebose reminded
everyone the meeting was in person only. Ms. Binnebose said this meeting would have many staff
updates the Board has requested: Foothills, Emerald Ribbon, and Miller Park. Urban Forestry is being
pushed to February.There will also be an icebreaker. Ms. Cannon asked if there could be an agenda
item for the Board to discuss their goals and priorities for the year and if there was a way to push the
staff presentations to another month. She doesn't want the retreat to be a longer, standard meeting.
Ms. Riker said any of the staff topics could wait. Ms. Riker talked about some options for their
February meeting. Ms. Cannon said they're required to review stuff in advance, and then their Board
meetings could be shorter. Ms. Finch has been pleased with how things have gone this last year. Ms.
Cannon would find it helpful if they could receive staff presentations ahead of time.The Board and
staff continued to discuss this.
Mr. Whittaker said he's confused about the Foothills because they've been waiting on a report for
months. He would propose moving the Foothills update to February as the Foothills Subcommittee
won't even see the report before the retreat. He asked the Board how they would feel about moving
the Foothills update to another month and dedicating a meeting to it. Ms. Riker said when meetings
are done at the Public Land's building, people can participate virtually, so it would be better to have
the update done another month. Ms. Riker said the golf update could be adjusted,too. Ms. Cannon
said she is hearing to remove all the staff updates and use that time for other Board topics. Ms.
Larsen said she'll need to double-check with Ms. Maponga on the Emerald Ribbon update as an
upcoming engagement or something is happening for that project that may need to be shared with
the Board. She also said the Miller Park topic is on the agenda as the Board requested to hear the
staff's presentation so that, as a Board,they can discuss having stakeholder presentations. Ms. Finch
said she would like to keep Miller Park on the agenda.
PARKS,NATURAL LANDS,URBAN FORESTRY AND TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD of SALT LAKE CITY
Ms. Binnebose said they could remove golf and the Foothills update and keep Emerald Ribbon and
Miller Park,which would free up time to add to the Miller Park and Emerald Ribbon discussions. Ms.
Pehrson asked what the conversation would look like to discuss Board goals. Ms. Binnebose said it
would just be an open discussion about how the Board feels. Ms. Nakamura noted it could also be
driven by the discussion from legal and their powers and duties.The Board and staff continued to
discuss the retreat agenda.
Mr. Carroll asked if staff needs are being met.The Trails Subcommittee has talked to Mr. Fonarow
about having quarterly meetings with the Foothills users to get better input so he has greater insight
into where the conflicting interests are. Ms. Riker asked for clarity on the staff's expectations of the
PNUT Board for projects. Ms. Carroll said just in general. Mr. Carroll asked how the staff embraces all
the conflicting needs and desires of the Jordan River. Ms. Riker said every decision has two decisions
and conflicting opinions.The Board and staff continued to discuss the staff's decision-making efforts.
SOMEONE motioned to adjourn the meeting. SOME seconded. The Board unanimously voted to
adjourn the meeting.
7. Adjourn 7:30 PM